Fun with Feedback

[God of 22/7]

So this is one of those "I MAED THIS FEEDBAK PLZ" threads, but of a slightly more serious tone. Basically, what I'm asking for feedback on is my English Extension 2 Major Work. In case you're unfamiliar with the NSW English syllabus, the basic idea is that you spend the whole damn year working on one bloody great story, play, essay, whatever. And this is mine. I thought that in order to get a broader range of perspectives, I'd try to get it on the internet and see what people there said. After spending an hour shouting at DeviantArt, I called my website guy and learned how to store files in the FTP. I'm not going to tell you anything about the play for the sheer fun of secrecy. You'll have to read it and find out what it is. I promise that the file is 100% safe for work and for your computer.

The file is here

What I'm asking for is five points of feedback;

1. What did you think of the play?
2. Are there any improvements you can suggest?
3. Did it remind you of anything?
4. What did you think that it was actually about?
5. How the hell do I get word documents onto DeviantArt?

Cheers.

[Firepowered]

Very very well written, I enjoyed it very much. You can really feel going deeper and deeper within human psychology and understanding human behaviour.

[Dr. Schadenfreude]

I am very impressed.
I have to admit that I'm having a bit of trouble verbalising what I think of this simply because I've been so "wowed", by it.
To that end: feel free to question me on anything I say and I'll try and explain what I was thinking.

As a playscript, and certainly in one reading, this is an awful lot to take in; I expect I'll have to read this a few more times before I actually feel I understand the majority of what you are saying. I am certain that watching an actual performance of this, and therefore seeing it properly paced and not speed-read, would provide a far more cohesive experience than I've had through reading it. That aside, I really like this.

I'm somewhat unwilling to suggest improvements as I am in no way certain that anything I might consider changing would either be a beneficial change or actually lead on to your intended destination. As I don't think I've come to any real understanding of this piece as a whole, I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to suggest how you could "improve", it.

There is a certain element of cliché to the setting and, to a certain degree, the characterisation but it isn't something I could put my finger on and say it reminds me of "X". I actually think this familiarity with the environment and style of characters makes them easier to accept and therefore helps simplify the extraneous elements so that the focus can be on the character interaction itself.

What it was about?
I'm tempted to say "The human condition", and leave it at that.

As I've said above, I don't really feel I understand what the play is about yet but would certainly acknowledge it as being deep and complex in its questions about the fallibility of humanity and how it slows the "march of progress".
I have a feeling I may have actually misinterpreted this but then again something like this is open to interpretation.

I have no ideas about DeviantArt, generally I avoid that place.


Lastly, trying to generalise for anyone who hasn't read the script yet, I don't quite understand the representation of the consequences. While the latter is clever, if a little jarring for the audience, I'm not really sure of the significance of the former.
Is it a sort of: "It's just a play, you weren't really expecting an answer?", response or more "You really haven't taken this very seriously, have you?", sort of thing?

Or, of course, something altogether different.

[God of 22/7]

There is a certain element of cliché to the setting and, to a certain degree, the characterisation but it isn't something I could put my finger on and say it reminds me of "X". I actually think this familiarity with the environment and style of characters makes them easier to accept and therefore helps simplify the extraneous elements so that the focus can be on the character interaction itself.

I seem to recall a quote by one of the Absurdist playwrights in which he said that his plays were all essentially about "two people walk into a room," and then it's what happens to them that makes the interest. I'm not entirely sure that I would call it "cliche" as such, but I understand your general meaning.

What it was about?
I'm tempted to say "The human condition", and leave it at that.

As I've said above, I don't really feel I understand what the play is about yet but would certainly acknowledge it as being deep and complex in its questions about the fallibility of humanity and how it slows the "march of progress".
I have a feeling I may have actually misinterpreted this but then again something like this is open to interpretation.

Your interpretation is as good as any. I'm really not sure whether the play is pro- or anti-progress, because in the end it doesn't really sympathise with either of the characters.

Lastly, trying to generalise for anyone who hasn't read the script yet, I don't quite understand the representation of the consequences. While the latter is clever, if a little jarring for the audience, I'm not really sure of the significance of the former.
Is it a sort of: "It's just a play, you weren't really expecting an answer?", response or more "You really haven't taken this very seriously, have you?", sort of thing?

The whole point of the ending is to really challenge the audience into thinking about the consequences. I'm not sure why it wound up being a one-or-the-other situation like it did, but I was pretty damn excited when I wrote it.

[Sheepshifter]

Well, you helped me, so I'll help you.

1. I liked this play overall. More specifically, I like the minimalist feel to the play, how it takes place in a very cramped, single space with only two characters. Oh, and the fourth wall breaking.  I always love that.

2. Tyler is apparently supposed to be the normal character, but at some times I found his dialog a little too formal. I'd suggest you go back and make Tyler say the same things, but in simpler ways.

3. I wasn't reminded of anything while I read it, no.

4. I'm in Middle school, currently to dumb to figure out what it's really about, maybe the evanescence of human life and psychology? I don't know.

5. I wouldn't know how to, sorry.

[Mei]

This gets two -thumbs up and a plate of cookies!

[Dr. Schadenfreude]

I seem to recall a quote by one of the Absurdist playwrights in which he said that his plays were all essentially about "two people walk into a room," and then it's what happens to them that makes the interest. I'm not entirely sure that I would call it "cliche" as such, but I understand your general meaning.

I have to agree about "cliché", not quite being the appropriate way to put it. It would have been far more suitable for me to refer to it as being somewhat typical of the medium. It seems I actually used the word with the intention of that meaning, forgetting that it has negative connotations.
In essence that quote refers to what I was thinking, a small-scale play that is contained within a single set and shows the development of a small number of characters over a period of time.

The whole point of the ending is to really challenge the audience into thinking about the consequences. I'm not sure why it wound up being a one-or-the-other situation like it did, but I was pretty damn excited when I wrote it.

I think that's part of my problem with the ending: it lacks any degree of finality.
Yes you are, symbolically, destroying your universe but the actual ending feels like opening Schroedinger's box, only to find that the cat had left of its own accord; regardless of whether we "open the box", or not, we aren't given any answers.   

I can see the ideal response to the endings, and do find them very interesting myself, but I'm left wondering what a general audience would think. You reach what appears to be the end of the play and then it just stops:

Are people going to sit uncomfortably and wait for something to happen?
Are you going to get applause?
How long will it be until someone works up the courage to end the play?

Arguably, though, none of these actually matter as, I presume, this script doesn't have to be brought to life. I do like the idea that your audience becomes a microcosm for humanity as a whole, as portrayed by Tyler, in that they have a particular expectation of how a play will end, yet here you are challenging it and asking them to end the play for you - something they're not used to. You are, in effect, looking for your Tyler, who can overcome their "petty little morals and religions", and make the decision no one else will to progress your play.

My problem is that the ending is less "I am become the destroyer of worlds", and more "Oh, it's over?".

I understand the reasoning for this, you want the audience to think rather than continue to moralise for them, but I can't help but feel that its a little anticlimactic.

[God of 22/7]

This gets two -thumbs up and a plate of cookies!

All bets are on as to whether or not Mei has actually read the play.

2. Tyler is apparently supposed to be the normal character, but at some times I found his dialog a little too formal. I'd suggest you go back and make Tyler say the same things, but in simpler ways.

The whole point of the thing is kind of that their speaking styles do change. Tyler's speaking style becomes far more formal and consistent, Rachel's becomes more informal and fragmented. Unless you're referring to points in the first half of the play where Tyler is speaking very formally (which I think I got rid of) then I don't see a problem here.

How's that mutant story going, by the way?

[Sheepshifter]

How's that mutant story going, by the way?

Swimmingly.
(Note to self: Hire thugs to beat the knowledge out of his brain)

[God of 22/7]

How's that mutant story going, by the way?

Swimmingly.
(Note to self: Hire thugs to beat the knowledge out of his brain)

Which knowledge in particular?